AV-Test.org: June 2018 test results (Windows 10)

AV-Test.org: May-June 2018 test results (Windows 10)

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

 

Thanks anon!

 

McAfee, Kaspersky and Avira with 18/18

 

I guess, you'll have to change your signature

 

no thanks the signature is more than fine as it is

 

Where is ESET?

Has McAfee been getting better?

Also PCMatic is in the list?

 

ESET No longer participates with that biased test anymore that always rates their performance the worst whilst AV Comparatives has them in first or 2nd place in terms of performance.

 

False detections of legitimate software as malware during a system scan

Everyone got 11.. not 10 not 12 only 11.

 

No offense intended, chabbo. But what the heck are you talking about? At the very least a specifically named software reference would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

thankfully ESET doesn't need to prove themselves in these rigged af tests.

 

Yeah, when I saw PC Matic scored 5.5, another factor to steer clear of AV-Test.

 

I would appreciate a link to any test report that shows ESET "the worst".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When selecting an AV for my own use, I give some credence to AV-Test's test reports, plus tests by AV-Comparatives, plus comments by people here at Wilders, plus other stuff. I'm sure that AV-Test charges a fee for inclusion in their tests, as does AV-Comparatives. Shame on them for trying to earn a living. However, if a test organization got *paid* in the bad sense of the word, its report would surely give clues to that fact.

I see no evidence of bias in test results of AV-Test or AV-Comparatives. The AVs they rate good, ARE considered good by most folks here at Wilders. And vice versa --the AVs that fall lower in their rankings are truly NOT the best choices for one's only basis of protection. I also note that the results shown in this specific report by AV-Test seem reasonably consistent with AV-Comp's test results. I don't see any weak AV given a "TOP" sticker by AV-test. Nor do I see a really really top-notch AV among those that did not get a TOP sticker.

Personally I give slightly greater weight to AV-C's reports -- versus any other test organization -- because IBK has chosen to be one of us & he has paid a price (NOT in money) for that choice. He doesn't drop by every day (as far as I know) but -- if someone asks a valid question about his test methodology, it will eventually be answered.

 

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/december-2017/

Note how they gave Eset a "4" in performance. Utterly absurd since Eset is one of the "lightest" AVs on the market.

 

they also included performance comparisons for every product tested, wherein eset performed under par in several categories vs competitors. the only way i could see fault in it would be if they just "gave it a 4" and didn't provide any detail.

 

PC Matic does well in testing, because it blocks anything that isn't whitelisted.

https://au.pcmag.com/software/54038/gallery/pc-pitstop-pc-matic

 

Good point. I had no idea they no longer participate in this.

 

Come on, these tests are basically useless for any serious discussion of what AV is best , they make interesting reading and are fodder for arguments on forums like these. I wont go into why they are useless but basically everyone on here should know why, its been discussed to death.

 

@ itman -- thanks for the link. I agree with m0unds comment #15. Unless AV-Test out-and-out fudged the detailed test numbers, the test details do seem to support the rating they gave.

In the test results linked by itman, there were a lot of AVs that were TOP rated and also a lot of AVs that were not TOP rated. As a businessman, I cannot conceive of a reason why any for-profit test organization would want to intentionally "unfriend" that many potential clients.

There are a number of low-rated AVs that have continued to participate in tests done by AV-Test. Would they do so if they felt the tests were unfairly structured or used invalid data? Hmmmm.....?

 

Protection Test procedures:
https://www.av-test.org/en/about-th...edures/test-modules-under-windows-protection/

Performance Test procedures:
https://www.av-test.org/en/about-th...dures/test-modules-under-windows-performance/

Usability Test procedures:
https://www.av-test.org/en/about-the-institute/test-procedures/test-modules-under-windows-usability/

 

because it is free advertisement; good or less good rating, people still hear your name which is good enough.

Tests labs are marketing platform, nothing else. if they would use real zero-days malware or scripts, most AV will be rated 20-30%, then all vendors will quit.

 

It is not free. It costs money to be included.

"Marketing" is not a dirty word. The reason Bill Gates outran Apple for a good while was primarily marketing. The reason why VHS sent BetaMax to the graveyard was primarily better marketing. The cold fact is that, even if your product is miles better than anyone else's, people won't buy it unless they know it exists.

Your 20-30% figure is fairly precise. Do you have a link for that?

@ whoever -- Are there no VALID zero-day tests? If not, why?

 

not for some labs, you pay to be retested after having the results or when they do a "sponsored" test.

never said it is dirty, i was community manager for an AV vendor, so i know a bit what is marketing.

no need any links, my own testing are enough, most AVs are known to be weak against real 0-days and especially scriptors, just ask @cruelsister or watch her videos.

https://malwaretips.com/threads/the-fallacy-of-professional-av-tests.85360/

 

You have zero days. Okay man. You have a better source than pro labs. Sure.

You knock AV-test then link to a person who claims their cat can code. Cute.

 

If you bothered to read her posts, or watch any of her YouTube videos, you will see that she is very knowledgeable.